Fujfilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Real-world Samples

The Fujinon XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS is the first telephoto zoom for Fujifilm's X system cameras, and offers an 83-300mm equivalent angle of view. It has built-in optical image stabilization with 4.5 stops claimed benefit, and uses linear stepper motors for silent autofocus. The lens features an (unmarked) aperture control ring, and offers high quality all-metal barrel construction.

We're working on expanding our previously-published content on this lens, but for now, click the links below to view our gallery of real-world samples taken in a range of different environments.

Fujfilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Samples Gallery

There are 32 images in our samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution.

Comments

The lens is good on the short end, soft on the long end, it's actually measured very similar to Samsung 50-200mm, which is a $200 lens. It's not quite as good as a cheap Canon 55-250mm, and for that $700 one can get Canon 70-200/4L, which is just far better than this Fujinon in every respect.

Quality wise, this zoom should be quite similar to any consumer DSLR zoom of this focal length out there.

My only concern is the size of this lens which is not much smaller than that of a DSLR zoom. Looking at it, if one were to attach this to the X-M1, for example, it would not balance well thus affecting handling. This size of it will best be attached to a DSLR size body.

In such a situation, the micro 4/3 zooms are made to better size. Even the Lumix 100-300mm f/4-5.6 is only slightly bigger but it covers up to 600mm equivalent. The Lumix 45-175mm f/4-5.6 is quite small for its focal length.

If one is going mirrorless, the combo must be small otherwise we might as well use a DSLR.

When you look at the IQ, the league in which this lens plays is not the entry level DSLR zoom, but those that are already big & heavy. You're right it makes the X-Pro1+XF55-200 combo not the most compact on the market, but it's a dream to work with and I'm not changing it for any 4/3 zoom...

Eventually, the flipply mirror will be viewed as a negative. Mirrorless will soon encompass full frame, and eventually larger sensors. Size is not the only reason to go to mirrorless. I plan to buy the xe1 because it is big enough to fit my hand and it has very good APSC sensor, and a high quality EVF built in. Smaller cameras like OMD don't fit my hand well. I will buy the 55-200mm. Already played with it at the store and it is comfortable on xe1.

Size is a very personal thing. In fact, photography in general is a personal thing. Depending on the size of your hand or whether you are a man or woman will determine what type of camera will suit you. It also depend on what type of photography you are doing.

For me, if I need a small camera to do intrepid photography, I would choose a compact camera, most likely a micro 4/3 camera, with a compact zoom and a large aperture prime for low light.

If I were to shoot sports like surfing in Bali, I can't do without my Canon 1DX and the latest Canon 200-400mm f 4.0L IS. Any other combo would not be able to capture the fast moving action at unpredictable distance.

If it is just a wedding, I would prefer a small full frame DSLR like the Canon 5D MkIII with a standard zoom like the 24-70mm f/2.8L MkII and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L MkII for closeups.

On other days, I will just take along a Canon G12 for unexpected photo opportunities.

For those who have not bought the XE-1, XM-1 or the older X-Pro1 and is considering a mirrorless camera can look out for the Olympus OMD EM1, the replacement to the OMD EM5, which will be launching in about 10 days time.

Simply not true. The image from the same object area coverd by a short focal lenght looks very much different than that covered by a long focal length. You can not zoom with your feet, you can zoom by cropping the image. (with loss of resolution)

LJ is right. With your feet, you can only change perspective. That's why you talk about a portrait lense for example. The distance to your subject with a portrait lense is just right to don't have any weird proportions in your face (big nose, etc.) and still fill out the frame completely. You can still get the same result in terms of composition with a wide angle lense if you use the same position of shooting. But of course, then the subject will be much smaller, and you have to crop the image and lose resolution. So naturally, you will go closer with your wide angle to get the same framing and thus you get a different perspective. Also lense characteristics like bokeh etc. will be different...

I use my legs to get the perspective I want. Then I zoom to get the framing I want. With a single prime, I would have to walk to get the framing and give up on getting the desired perspective. It I could carry a bunch of primes and switch lens every other shot on average. A sharp and fast zoom is a fantastic tool.

I've been using the XF55-200 for almost two months now. Always found that the Fuji X AF-discussion was a bit over the top, likely by some that never used the camera at all. Regarding this lens, there has not been one moment that I thought 'AF is too slow', camera and lens worked fine for me with a result that was nothing less than excellent. Previously owned Nikon, I'm not going to make any assessment about them, but you'll need to dig deep in your wallet to get the same kind of result and prepare for a very sore shoulder.

I don't have the 18-55, but all primes except the XF23mm and, of course new 27mm. I find the XF14mm the best lens in AF behavior, XF55-200 behaves very well. the XF60 is still the worst. About the low light behavior, I'm always wondering which kind of pictures people are trying to make in the dark.. My Nikon didn't excel in this either, maybe one or two lucky shots but all the rest out of focus, no doubt. Are some maybe trying to achieve the impossible?

It's strange, a camera rumor story and there are hundreds of comments. An article with sample images from an actual lens that's shipping and next to nothing.

Anyway, very nice looking images. The wildlife looks great, and I always get nostalgic when DPR posts sample images from London. It's such an interesting city, with absolutely fantastic architecture to shoot.

RIGHT!? Still, though, this lens looks like it could kick the crap out of any cheap Canikon equivalents. I love how Fuji seems to have forgotten what the industry standard max apertures are for their X lenses.

Nailed it, Marike. "CHEAP Canikon eqiuvalents." Besides, the 70-200 f/4 may be cheaper but you're comparing apples to oranges. The Canon version with IS is $600 more expensive than this one. Looking at their stabilized APS-C option, the 55-250, Fuji's is twice the price and you can bet it's worth every penny in superior quality and faster aperture. Ditto that for Nikon's DX equivalent.

This lens is at least as good as the L series 70-200 F/4. Don't believe me? Look for reviews (e.g. www.prophotonut.com/2013/07/08/10-portraits-and-a-review-of-the-fujifilm-xf-55-200mm-f3-5-4-8-lm-ois-lens/ reckons the Fuji lens's IQ is "better than the Canon 70-200 L", and photogenykstudios.com/2013/05/28/fuji-xf-55-200mm-3-5-4-8-lens-impressions/ puts it around the same.

I wish only people who actually have both A and B would be allowed to blurt out statements like A is better than B ;-)

I am considering buying the X-E1 with both zooms and the 60mm with plans to add the 10-24 when it comes out. This X100S would remain my most used camera and the X-E1 when different focal lengths are needed.

OOF loos indeed good in the butterfly image, but in those where the background is not blurred as strongly it looks ... strange. Look at background the gorilla image or the flamingo image. I am wondering whether those are aberrations, or the effect of the X-Trans sensor.

One of the finest zooms made?! Bold statement, indeed! I own the Nikon AF-S VR 80-400, Mark II, and that IS an amazingly sharp lens, but it would be very bold of me to call it one of the finest zooms made, as there are so many out there I don't own, or have tested myself! The Pentax 18-55 was better than Canon's and Nikon's equivalent, but still not one of the best, I'm sure ;-)!

@ caver ... LOL. I've wondered before if dear old Ken couldn't be another Jim Jones of photographers, holed up somewhere in California. Price of admission would be that one need buy everything ever made, then sell it, then wait, then buy it all again because it always was the best to begin with....at least until the next thing is out. HAHAHA....gotta love a marketer.

Knock it off you guys. I loved my 18-200 Nikkor and took some of my favorite pictures with it. It's not razor sharp, but the images it produced were very coherent. Short of carrying two camera bodies it was the fastest way to go from short to long.

Nikon 18-200To insert an article for nikon 18-200 within this Fuji 55-200 review is awkward to say the least.The 18-200 is very very soft, the tube is too loose, creeping out of the barrel, made of plastic. If you ever try the Fuji 55-200 you will give away your 18-200.Regards